Water charges for excessive usage

Boggles

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

Doesn't make a difference really if the occupier makes threats as into what will be done to you if set foot inside the boundary wall.

In terms of getting it fixed, of course it does.

IF the property is owned by the local authority, they have the legal right to fix it.

IF the property is owned privately and that person won't let Irish Water in, then that is in all likely hood have to go to court, therefore far more awkward.

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote:

Sorry if I was unclear on that.

I answered what you asked, no point reframing the question if you didn't like my reply.

Benedict

The fact remains that if you are one of the following IW customers: (1) Protestor who wouldn't allow installation (2) No meter because they stopped installing before they got to you (3) Live in an apartment complex.

None of the above 3 categories will have a quota imposed.

All other categories will have a quota imposed on penalty of a fine or jail if you don't pay the fine.

This is unfair and legally unsustainable and will be challenged in the courts.

It discriminates against one section of the community in favour of another section which will benefit at their expense.

IW are wasting time and money on this plan because it cannot succeed.

Brendan Bendar

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

There are more ways to tackle issues than by ‘marching’ my friend.

What ‘austerity measures’ do you feel we’re not adequately opposed as a matter of interest?

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

True, non payment was infinitely far more effective.


The only measure I saw that was opposed was the household charge. I don't remember any other protests maybe you could enlighten if I'm incorrect. It seems to me middle Ireland just rolled over as they will again.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I answered what you asked, no point reframing the question if you didn't like my reply.

I afraid you didn’t, but if you can’t name any that’s fair enough

Brendan Bendar

Benedict wrote: »

The fact remains that if you are one of the following IW customers: (1) Protestor who wouldn't allow installation (2) No meter because they stopped installing before they got to you (3) Live in an apartment complex.

None of the above 3 categories will have a quota imposed.

All other categories will have a quota imposed on penalty of a fine or jail if you don't pay the fine.

This is unfair and legally unsustainable and will be challenged in the courts.

It discriminates against one section of the community in favour of another section which will benefit at their expense.

IW are wasting time and money on this plan because it cannot succeed.

Yes indeed Mr B, like we said, this one in its present state will…not…run.

As Alex Ferguson used to say.”.make no mistake aboot thaa”

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote:

I afraid you didn’t, but if you can’t name any that’s fair enough

I answered to what I felt you asked, not my fault if you wish to revisit my answer and revise your question.

Fanny Wank

Household charge was opposed until it was handed to revenue. Then the people who claimed they'd never pay, would go to prison etc did pay

Same will happen if water charges are reintroduced. There'll be noise until there's actual consequences of not paying. Then people will pay

If it really was a "protest" that "enough was enough" then people also would have stopped paying motor tax etc.

Irony was that most people I know who complained "I already pay for water" are huge net benefactors of the state

Boggles

Fanny **** wrote: »

Household charge was opposed until it was handed to revenue. Then the people who claimed they'd never pay, would go to prison etc did pay

Same will happen if water charges are reintroduced. There'll be noise until there's actual consequences of not paying. Then people will pay

If it really was a "protest" that "enough was enough" then people also would have stopped paying motor tax etc.

Irony was that most people I know who complained "I already pay for water" are huge net benefactors of the state

Revenue have all ready stated they will not touch "utilities". Why would they?

Irish Water have an agreed funding model going forward.

Charges are not coming back for the foreseeable and if they do it won't have anything to do with Revenue.

The stick of charging for excess is based on conservation and not revenue raising, but is probably unworkable.

Fanny Wank

Boggles wrote: »

Revenue have all ready stated they will not touch "utilities". Why would they?

Irish Water have an agreed funding model going forward.

Charges are not coming back for the foreseeable and if they do it won't have anything to do with Revenue.

I never said Revenue would - I said *if* charges are reintroduced there will be consequences of non-payment and people will pay.

Plumbthedepths

Fanny **** wrote:

I never said Revenue would - I said *if* charges are reintroduced there will be consequences of non-payment and people will pay.

What consequences?

Boggles

Fanny **** wrote: »

I never said Revenue would - I said *if* charges are reintroduced there will be consequences of non-payment and people will pay.

Sure there was "consequences" the last time, fines and imprisonment.

Fanny Wank

Boggles wrote: »

Sure there was "consequences" the last time, fines and imprisonment.

Nope, zero consequences

Fanny Wank

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

What consequences?

Reduced water pressure maybe?

Fines that will actually be collected

*if* charges are reintroduced the government will not just adopt the former "shur pay of you like" attitude. There will be measures to ensure the actual cash is collected

And people will pay. It may not be this year or the next but water charges of some form will be reintroduced in the future IMO

Plumbthedepths

Fanny **** wrote:

And people will pay.

Heard that before, how'd it work out? Also heard the one about water down to a trickle. Political suicide tbh or the clown suggesting it would have to be shipped off somewhere, maybe Europe. ;-)

Boggles

Fanny **** wrote: »

Reduced water pressure maybe?

Fines that will actually be collected

*if* charges are reintroduced the government will not just adopt the former "shur pay of you like" attitude. There will be measures to ensure the actual cash is collected

And people will pay.

Brave government who will try reintroduce that Ghost.

Fanny Wank

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Heard that before, how'd it work out?

It didn't because there were zero consequences of not paying

As soon as there are all the heroes who pay their motor tax etc and didn't pay property tax til revenue took charge will

You don't appear to be reading my posts

To summarise my opinion is:

- government introducted water charges. There was no punishment for not paying. People didn't bother. A lot dressed it up as an ideological reason - I don't believe this to be the case (as I've already posted)
- *If* they are reintroduced I believe the government of the time will have enforceable penalties for non payment. Similarly to property tax - people will pay

By all means disagree

Boggles

Fanny **** wrote: »

It didn't because there were zero consequences of not paying

As soon as there are all the heroes who pay their motor tax etc and didn't pay property tax til revenue took charge will

You don't appear to be reading my posts

To summarise my opinion is:

- government introducted water charges. There was no punishment for not paying. People didn't bother. A lot dressed it up as an ideological reason - I don't believe this to be the case (as I've already posted)
- *If* they are reintroduced I believe the government of the time will have enforceable penalties for non payment. Similarly to property tax - people will pay

By all means disagree

Plumbthedepths

Fanny **** wrote:

As soon as there are all the heroes who pay their motor tax etc and didn't pay property tax til revenue took charge will

Which makes you wonder why FG/Lab never handed collection to Revenue, any thoughts as to why?

odyssey06

If they want to treat it as a tax and be collected by Revenue, they can't have Irish Water even as a semi-state.

Remember one of the main reasons FG went with the company structure originally, it was an attempt to pass EU Market Capitalization tests and so could borrow money in its own name and it's debts would not appear on the government's balance sheet (and it would then provide government with more fiscal space when it comes to debt-GDP ratios and deficits). To pass EU Market Capitalization tests, I think it has to have a majority revenue stream outside government subsidy (and tax would count as government funds).

James Brown

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

Tell me why is it that our water network is red rotten today then?

Simple question...

Under funded for decades. This is a government, cross party, LA and Irish Water accepted fact. It was all the LA's could do to maintain it. No money to over haul and no plans to do so. IW praised the LA's for their work 'despite decades of under funding'. This is accepted, common knowledge, I thought.

As for why it's still like that? Because FG/Lab lied and said they'd over haul the system before getting into home metering, when in fact they lost interest because home metering wasn't popular and there was no (more) money to be made for Dinny and the FG cronies. I believe it's happening albeit slowly now.

James Brown

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

Contractors have numbers & targets to hit when it comes to leak reduction. That's something the CC's / LA's never had to worry about.

Questions will have to answered every Friday if there isn't a certain amount of jobs closed out or completed.

The leaks are there we all know that, IW want the contractors to do what they are being paid for and that's identify & repair them.

You are very misinformed. I've a feeling you're guessing and making things up because you didn't get that information from reality.
The LA's have been using contractors for all works for decades. The tenders come in, they are vetted, a contractor wins the contract. If they don't deliver they don't get another.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll explain the irony of your comment.

Water maintenance and supply was/is funded through general taxation. However, the service was let go so crappy, (see where this is going?) rather than tackling it they created a quango with crony appointments and a still under investigation Sitserv deal.

IW is FG/Lab's answer to how to deal with...are you ready?.....a crappy public service our taxes pay for.

It's 'the fix' people have issue with, not improving poor service.

The 'fix' as you call it is paying for water as a Utility, like every other western nation on earth. But we Irish seems to have a different way about it.

On one hand, you give out about crappy services but refuse the reform or the tax needed to fund said services.

You have been well and truly found out for your doublespeak.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Under funded for decades. .

Hence why we should fund water services as they do in every other mature nation. Pay for its use.

odyssey06

markodaly wrote: »

The 'fix' as you call it is paying for water as a Utility, like every other western nation on earth. But we Irish seems to have a different way about it.
On one hand, you give out about crappy services but refuse the reform or the tax needed to fund said services.
You have been well and truly found out for your doublespeak.

Well other nations seem to be able to set up efficient & competent utility providers, so not so surprising they have the public support of their citizens who can see where their tax or bills are going.

FG had a chance here to do that and they blew it, making numerous unforced own goals because their primartuy focus wasn't on delivering a competent efficient utility provider and improved water services infrastructure, it was all about the financial side of it (see
EU Market Capitalization).

That has now poisoned the well for a generation.

Benedict

Fanny **** wrote: »

Household charge was opposed until it was handed to revenue. Then the people who claimed they'd never pay, would go to prison etc did pay

Same will happen if water charges are reintroduced. There'll be noise until there's actual consequences of not paying. Then people will pay

If it really was a "protest" that "enough was enough" then people also would have stopped paying motor tax etc.

Irony was that most people I know who complained "I already pay for water" are huge net benefactors of the state

That's the whole point - if the excessive-use charge is unfair, Revenue won't take it on. A charge that targets half the people in Ireland and turns a blind eye to the other half is a joke. So Revenue wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

cameramonkey

markodaly wrote: »

The 'fix' as you call it is paying for water as a Utility, like every other western nation on earth. But we Irish seems to have a different way about it.

On one hand, you give out about crappy services but refuse the reform or the tax needed to fund said services.

You have been well and truly found out for your doublespeak.

There are plenty of anomalies in the Irish system of charges and taxes. VRT is a tax that seems has no comparison in many other countries. Just because everyone else in Europe pays a different way from Irish people for water does not mean we dont pay.

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

On one hand, you give out about crappy services but refuse the reform or the tax needed to fund said services.

If only it were that simple.

This is my "favorite" one from the past couple of years.

Comptroller and Auditor General Seamus McCarthy found that the Department of Children squandered €16m renting new headquarters it left empty for almost a year and a half because staff were squabbling over the layout of the accommodation.

Of course that pales in comparison to the "conservation grant". How many examples do you need?

But you see Mark, when you talk of services and funding in other Countries and compare them to Ireland, you have to divide it by the acting the bollix factor.

You are not getting a balanced view if you don't.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

The 'fix' as you call it is paying for water as a Utility, like every other western nation on earth. But we Irish seems to have a different way about it.

On one hand, you give out about crappy services but refuse the reform or the tax needed to fund said services.

You have been well and truly found out for your doublespeak.

No it's the crony appointments, questionable sweet deal of Siteserv still under investigation. That's the fix I'm talking about. How did you not get that? I laid it out in the post you quoted. Did you not read it?

markodaly wrote: »

Hence why we should fund water services as they do in every other mature nation. Pay for its use.

Once again you are gone a ways from the context to drive home your own agenda. The poster asked why it was in such a bad state. I explained. Seriously read before you quote. If you want to make your own point no need to quote mine.

Brendan Bendar

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I answered to what I felt you asked, not my fault if you wish to revisit my answer and revise your question.

Not correct, the question is as quoted same as the original, listen, no big deal, we all make mistakes, be better if a person bigs up and stops digging though.

I have much more respect for that kind of approach.

Brendan Bendar

odyssey06 wrote: »

If they want to treat it as a tax and be collected by Revenue, they can't have Irish Water even as a semi-state.

Remember one of the main reasons FG went with the company structure originally, it was an attempt to pass EU Market Capitalization tests and so could borrow money in its own name and it's debts would not appear on the government's balance sheet (and it would then provide government with more fiscal space when it comes to debt-GDP ratios and deficits). To pass EU Market Capitalization tests, I think it has to have a majority revenue stream outside government subsidy (and tax would count as government funds).

Correct.

James Brown

MacDanger wrote: »

Where do you think the money for replacing the water pipes should come from?

Taxation.

Boggles

odyssey06 wrote: »

If they want to treat it as a tax and be collected by Revenue, they can't have Irish Water even as a semi-state.

Remember one of the main reasons FG went with the company structure originally, it was an attempt to pass EU Market Capitalization tests and so could borrow money in its own name and it's debts would not appear on the government's balance sheet (and it would then provide government with more fiscal space when it comes to debt-GDP ratios and deficits). To pass EU Market Capitalization tests, I think it has to have a majority revenue stream outside government subsidy (and tax would count as government funds).

Can you imagine what would have happened if it were given free reign borrowing on the open market?

Absolute carnage.

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote:

Not correct, the question is as quoted same as the original, listen, no big deal, we all make mistakes, be better if a person bigs up and stops digging though.

B throwing a hissy fit because you didn't get the answer you wanted is a bit immature. You do realise no one myself included is under any obligation to respond in the manner you wish to dictate. Welcome to life.

odyssey06

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Taxation.

And commercial water rates, which everyone seems to be forgetting about but which is still collected by Irish Water.

realdanbreen

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

And who arrives on after only Paul Murphy, he must be nearly creaming himself that his favourite subject is back in the news.

Murphy &Ruth Coppinger are too busy protesting against Clare Dalys jobs for the boys carry on! (NOT!)

Brendan Bendar

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

B throwing a hissy fit because you didn't get the answer you wanted is a bit immature. You do realise no one myself included is under any obligation to respond in the manner you wish to dictate. Welcome to life.

I didn’t throw any hissy fit.

If you can’t answer the question, I’ll say it again, that’s fine.

You need to stop digging.

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote:

If you can’t answer the question, I’ll say it again, that’s fine.

I did answer just not to your liking. You need it grow up a d move on.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

If only it were that simple.

Other countries also waste money. I know, that might be surprising to hear, but that should not detract from the fundamental point that water is a utility and should be paid for.

TuringBot47

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Taxation.

Taxation only taxes the decent people who work and contribute tax.

In fairness, property tax and water tax are trying to "tax" everyone equally and avoid directly dropping the generous social welfare payments.

Plumbthedepths

TuringBot47 wrote:

Taxation only taxes the decent people who work and contribute tax.

Everyone pays tax, income tax is not the only form of tax we pay.

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

Other countries also waste money. I know, that might be surprising to hear,

Not at all, I imagine they do, not to our level when it comes to spending the public's money mind.

But other countries have a thing called "accountability".

markodaly wrote: »

but that should not detract from the fundamental point that water is a utility and should be paid for.

It is paid for. Go home this evening and turn on your tap if you need proof.

Now TBF, you are making a classic mistake. You think if it charged for at source then magically we will get a better service.

Silly rabbit.

Loads of memories flooding back.

Remember the time Irish Water spend 6k on laughing yoga?

Plumbthedepths

Boggles wrote:

Remember the time Irish Water spend 6k on laughing yoga?

Laughing yoga was a minor thing, bonuses were incorporated into the set up before a leaky tap was fixed .

James Brown

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I did answer just not to your liking. You need it grow up a d move on.

B likes to drag his little jolities on and on and on after a while you realise he has no point to make. Don't waste your time.

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Taxation only taxes the decent people who work and contribute tax.

In fairness, property tax and water tax are trying to "tax" everyone equally and avoid directly dropping the generous social welfare payments.

This was another flaw. The tax payer always pays. Billing people on welfare seems great and all but that's coming from the tax payer. We'd likely save on administration by not carrying on the farce.

Boggles

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Laughing yoga was a minor thing, bonuses were incorporated into the set up before a leaky tap was fixed .

Laughing Yoga was a minor spend, all though 6k isn't that minor TBF.

Someones annual tax liability laughed into thin air.

It was indicative of what Irish Water was and would become if it were allowed borrow on the opening market.

Unsustainable.

James Brown

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Laughing yoga was a minor thing, bonuses were incorporated into the set up before a leaky tap was fixed .

That was another. When there was talk of closing it, it's supporters, those who oft thread these boards complaining about unions and civil servants, were quick to point out the contracts IW had entered into meant it would cost us a fortune to try wind it down. With all the FG pals on the board it's quite clear FG are the bigger problem not unions or civil servants.

Plumbthedepths

Matt Barrett wrote:

B likes to drag his like jolities on and on and on after a while you realise he has no point to make. Don't waste your time.

Noted and I'd rather not derail the thread.

iguana

I wonder how many of the 80k houses using excessive water are on a shared supply. Irish Water semi regularly contacts me to tell me I must have a leak because of excessive water usage at my house. It doesn't matter how many times I tell them that I'm not the only house using my supply, they keep forgetting and contacting me again. It's a total waste of money because they are unable to deal with a scenario that they know about but don't seem to take into account. I have no doubt that I'm being counted as one of those 80k houses, when from what I can work out, our water usage per household on the supply is actually low.

corks finest

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Laughing yoga was a minor thing, bonuses were incorporated into the set up before a leaky tap was fixed .

That was another. When there was talk of closing it, it's supporters, those who oft thread these boards complaining about unions and civil servants, were quick to point out the contracts IW had entered into meant it would cost us a fortune to try wind it down. With all the FG pals on the board it's quite clear FG are the bigger problem not unions or civil servants.

FG and wafflee Leo need to f**k off out of our lives fast

James Brown

iguana wrote: »

I wonder how many of the 80k houses using excessive water are on a shared supply. Irish Water semi regularly contacts me to tell me I must have a leak because of excessive water usage at my house. It doesn't matter how many times I tell them that I'm not the only house using my supply, they keep forgetting and contacting me again. It's a total waste of money because they are unable to deal with a scenario that they know about but don't seem to take into account. I have no doubt that I'm being counted as one of those 80k houses, when from what I can work out, our water usage per household on the supply is actually low.

Send a registered letter to the head of that department, (billing?). I had a similar issue with Eircom a long time ago. I cancelled my account and they kept sending bills. Every cycle I had to call and get them to quash it. Then next cycle I was hit again. I sent a registered letter to the head of billing explaining the situation and that was the last I heard of it.

TuringBot47

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Everyone pays tax, income tax is not the only form of tax we pay.

But if you're talking about the unemployed paying VAT, then it's the State giving them €100 and them giving back €21.

Not exactly a net contributor.